Posted on 2004-02-14 21:54:49 by rob.rice
Guess what? The leaked code contains core files, indicating that it has been on a linux machine. The core files also contained enough info to track the leak down to Mainsoft (www.mainsoft.com). So linux is most probably responsible for the leak, either because linux is insecure, and someone managed to break in and steal the code, or because linux users can not be trusted, and one of the linux-employees leaked it.
Either way, I hold linux responsible, and I think linux should be outlawed.
Posted on 2004-02-15 06:04:07 by Henk-Jan

Guess what? The leaked code contains core files, indicating that it has been on a linux machine. The core files also contained enough info to track the leak down to Mainsoft (www.mainsoft.com). So linux is most probably responsible for the leak, either because linux is insecure, and someone managed to break in and steal the code, or because linux users can not be trusted, and one of the linux-employees leaked it.
Either way, I hold linux responsible, and I think linux should be outlawed.


wtf? are you serious?
Posted on 2004-02-15 09:55:29 by gorshing
The part about the leak coming from Mainsoft is true, but I am not sure about the rest.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1526830,00.asp
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3312621
Posted on 2004-02-15 10:06:50 by roticv
The thing about the core-file was on slashdot.org: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=96614&cid=8266501
If you download the source, you can find the core-file and dissect it as they did, and find the mainsoft references to it, and ofcourse the linux-references (the core-file was created by a linux system).
Posted on 2004-02-15 10:14:37 by Henk-Jan
No, I was talking about your 'theory'

because linux users can not be trusted, and one of the linux-employees leaked it.
Either way, I hold linux responsible, and I think linux should be outlawed
Posted on 2004-02-15 10:26:28 by gorshing
Well, let's face it, many people only run linux because they hope to ruin MS' monopoly that way, and/or they can hax0r bett3r with linux, the so-called script-kiddies.
Linux users also overstate linux security every chance they get, and flame Windows without knowing about it, again to harm MS.
This sort of stuff fits perfectly into their mindset.
Linux users also nag about how everything should be opensource (look at ESR's demand to make Java opensource recently... screw you, write your own JVM. The specs are open, and all the Java libraries are opensource aswell).
In short, yes, linux is responsible and should be outlawed, to prevent it from destroying the industry either with conning everyone into using opensource (particularly the GPL variant), or by hacking or DDoSing other systems (yes, linux users also DDoSed SCO, how nice).
Posted on 2004-02-15 10:33:54 by Henk-Jan
OK, let me get this straight

Linux should be outlawed because ppl use it in hopes to ruin Microsoft.

The GPL is bad because it makes source code free.

So everybody should use Microsoft products and not use any GPL related software?

So basically, ppl shouldn't have a choice on what they use? So we should all drive Mercedes?

You also stated that Linux users flame Windows users without knowing Windows. So you are saying that you know Linux (I assume pretty well)?

Am I correct so far? Or have I mistaken something?
Posted on 2004-02-15 11:08:40 by gorshing
GPL doesn't make source code free. GPL makes it impossible to freely use source code.
And since when is Microsoft the only alternative to GPL? What about BSD and other licences, or other commercial companies?
I never said there should not be any choice, I just said that one particular choice (GPL/linux) is bad.
And yes, I know linux pretty well. And I know more than just linux, or just Windows. There's plenty of other software and hardware out there. It always surprises me how linux people keep nagging about the MS monopoly while they seem completely happy with the x86 monopoly, which is a much bigger technological problem. Ah well, I just assume that they are clueless, and just heard something about anti-MS somewhere, and think it's l33t to be anti-MS and run linux.
Posted on 2004-02-15 11:23:40 by Henk-Jan
The argument is somewhat flawed that linux is responsible for the leak.
Although I agree that the individual who leaked it probably did so out of some warped open-source loyalty, blaming the kernel of an OS for that is a little silly (although I can appreciate the tone of your post given the past you and Rob share). The zealotry of some people and their OS wars is funny. But the argument that some impotent teenage halfwit wrote some pissy little worm makes all users of Linux just as stupid is obviously wrong. It is tantemount to saying all the Chinese & Japanese are criminals (they have the occasional hacking war), and the same goes for any other particularly stupid "net war" that has gone on ever.

The use of the word "many" in the first sentence is also misleading, there are certainly a percentage of people who use linux because they are l33t and/or |-|a><orZ, but the real users (i.e. people who make real use of the OS) are people in business. There is now virtually no EDA tool company left who develops with MS, and certainly not for their primary toolset. Linux fits in nicely alongside the other unices, and the price/performance ratio of Linux & x86 makes it a good solution compared to SPARC or any of the other big iron for smaller companies.

Enough virii have been written by any OS & hardware to make everyone morrally reprehensible by your argument, so all computers should be outlawed.

But given the nature of the post, it's title, and it's design to provoke, I'll ignore it all, and join the "down with linux" argument.

Boo!
Down with linux!
Burn Linus, he's a witch, and a communist, and hurts small children and animals for fun. I also hear he gets his breast out at every superbowl too.
Boo.

Mirno
Posted on 2004-02-15 11:24:16 by Mirno
FreeBSD makes linux obsolete, if it wasn't for the hype around linux, but technical reasons, people would be using FreeBSD, not linux. I don't care for the hype, and I don't care for linux. So I say, let's not take chances, and outlaw it. There are plenty of better alternatives for linux, without the hype and the annoying 'support'.

Oh and if you think that people on a Windows-forum can appreciate linux-users stealing the sourcecode of their OS and spreading it, hoping to ruin Windows, then you need your head examined. Their intentions are bad, and what they are doing is a severe criminal offence. They should be punished severely.
Posted on 2004-02-15 11:28:28 by Henk-Jan

I also hear he gets his breast out at every superbowl too.

lol :tongue:

i heard they were running a vulnerable wu-ftpd.
Posted on 2004-02-15 14:16:44 by Tola
Well, let's face it, many people only run linux because they hope to ruin MS' monopoly that way, and/or they can hax0r bett3r with linux, the so-called script-kiddies.


I wonder why IBM is now offering Linux as a mainframe option. After all, they've already qot quite a few, very secure, OSes for the big boxes. Like MVS, VSE and VM for starters...

:)
Posted on 2004-02-15 14:20:08 by S/390
IBM just uses linux because some people are stupid enough to work on the OS without IBM having to pay them, so it's simply cheaper than developing their own OSes.
As long as the customers accept linux as an OS, ofcourse IBM will use it, after all, it only makes them richer. Did you think IBM was in it for anything other than the money? Think again.
Posted on 2004-02-15 14:40:36 by Henk-Jan

linux users can not be trusted



And yes, I know linux pretty well.


I'm lost :confused:
Posted on 2004-02-15 14:57:06 by gorshing
What's knowing linux have to do with using linux?
Posted on 2004-02-15 14:59:28 by Henk-Jan
Well s'pose you're right... I know that "fruktsoda" (a carbonated drink) tastes like a cleaning agent. (Not that I've tased any cleaning agnet, but what does tasting have to do with knowing how it tastes?)
Posted on 2004-02-15 15:35:09 by scientica

Well s'pose you're right... I know that "fruktsoda" (a carbonated drink) tastes like a cleaning agent. (Not that I've tased any cleaning agnet, but what does tasting have to do with knowing how it tastes?)

it also sounds like one ;)
Posted on 2004-02-15 15:38:06 by Tola

GPL doesn't make source code free. GPL makes it impossible to freely use source code.
And since when is Microsoft the only alternative to GPL? What about BSD and other licences, or other commercial companies?
I never said there should not be any choice, I just said that one particular choice (GPL/linux) is bad.
And yes, I know linux pretty well. And I know more than just linux, or just Windows. There's plenty of other software and hardware out there. It always surprises me how linux people keep nagging about the MS monopoly while they seem completely happy with the x86 monopoly, which is a much bigger technological problem. Ah well, I just assume that they are clueless, and just heard something about anti-MS somewhere, and think it's l33t to be anti-MS and run linux.


:stupid:

You are 100% wrong. GPL makes code free. Haven't you ever heard the expression "Free software". What GPL really does, is preserving the freedom to share, modify, sell etc etc sourcecode. And if that is not freedom, what is? The GPL choice is a really good choice, because it helps freedom remain free. Not letting 'opensource'code wind up in MS TCP/IP stack.

Oh, and just let me tell you that Microsoft does not have monopoly. Nor has intel monpoly on x86. Just look at GNU/Linux and AMD.

Some people run GNU to brag off. So what? Let them do it, just look the other way around. I use GNU because of the freedom I get. Not because I hate MS or wan't to destroy their so-called "monopoly".

Besides, I would never touch BSD because I oppose the BSD License. Allright, it might be approved by the OSI, but OpenSource does not qualify giving freedom. Just look at the license of QMail. Its opensource. Yet it does not give you any hacking freedom.
Posted on 2004-02-15 15:49:26 by Kriss
no, GPL makes other code GPL... if that's your definition of free then you'd have loved the "Third Reich".

BSD (MIT style) license offers true freedom for any party involved to use the code as they see fit. The only thing that I know that's more free than MIT style licensing is 'public domain'.

What GPL really does, is preserving the freedom to share, modify, sell etc etc sourcecode. And if that is not freedom, what is? The GPL choice is a really good choice, because it helps freedom remain free. Not letting 'opensource'code wind up in MS TCP/IP stack.


Your contradiction already speaks for itself...
Posted on 2004-02-15 16:09:32 by Hiroshimator